Hudson's Surprise - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 6, 2004

Hudson's Surprise

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Remembering
"We now have two issues for which Tim Hudson is being blamed. These are coming out each month right before the PUC meetings. My question is " Are these the surprises that were spoken of during the past summer?" I recall posters saying the TH has left some surprise packages."

I don't think that if TH really has designs on the USM presidency, as so many have suggested, he would have left this sort of surprise package. But who knows? Maybe he thought SFT wouldn't play the old "blame the guy who left" game. If so, TH is not as smart as he thinks he is.

I suspect we haven't seen TH's little "time bombs" yet...

Date: Oct 7, 2004

wrong, many do, wrong but thinks it will work for him, right, that there are still more - right

i agree with remembering

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: 2 wrongs don't make a right
"wrong, many do, wrong but thinks it will work for him, right, that there are still more - right
i agree with remembering"

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd be interested in finding out how TH thinks the "blame the guy who left" game is gonna help him, though... It sounds convoluted to me, but then normal logic doesn't seem to apply...

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"....I'd be interested in finding out how TH thinks the "blame the guy who left" game is gonna help him, though... It sounds convoluted to me, but then normal logic doesn't seem to apply..."

I have a bit of insight here. Although I can't say how I know for fear of compromising others, this is more than idle speculation. While Uncle Tim is no brainiac, he's a far more facile politician than Thames, and has been able to stay several steps ahead of the Thames cabal throughout the recent fiasco. As to how the "blame the guy who left" game will help him, consider this. Except for Klumb and a few other local cronies and sycophants, Thames is now without support or credibility. Clearly he is damaged goods, hardly a beloved figure within the community, or the IHL. To be vilified by Thames, especially in absentia (having just been showered with praise at his departure fete), is a compliment of the highest order. Hudson, by remaining silent and allowing the one-sided mud slinging to continue, is able to distance himself from any real or perceived notion that he was ever a Thames henchman. This cements his image as the anti-Thames, an attractive position in the event he chooses to make a run at the USM top job in 2006. I hate to keep repeating the obvious, but USM hasn't seen the last of Tim Hudson.

AE

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
" I have a bit of insight here. Although I can't say how I know for fear of compromising others, this is more than idle speculation. While Uncle Tim is no brainiac, he's a far more facile politician than Thames, and has been able to stay several steps ahead of the Thames cabal throughout the recent fiasco. As to how the "blame the guy who left" game will help him, consider this. Except for Klumb and a few other local cronies and sycophants, Thames is now without support or credibility. Clearly he is damaged goods, hardly a beloved figure within the community, or the IHL. To be vilified by Thames, especially in absentia (having just been showered with praise at his departure fete), is a compliment of the highest order. Hudson, by remaining silent and allowing the one-sided mud slinging to continue, is able to distance himself from any real or perceived notion that he was ever a Thames henchman. This cements his image as the anti-Thames, an attractive position in the event he chooses to make a run at the USM top job in 2006. I hate to keep repeating the obvious, but USM hasn't seen the last of Tim Hudson. AE"

One of the best posts I've seen here in a while, AE. I think you're right on the money. Stay tuned!

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
" I have a bit of insight here. Although I can't say how I know for fear of compromising others, this is more than idle speculation. While Uncle Tim is no brainiac, he's a far more facile politician than Thames, and has been able to stay several steps ahead of the Thames cabal throughout the recent fiasco. As to how the "blame the guy who left" game will help him, consider this. Except for Klumb and a few other local cronies and sycophants, Thames is now without support or credibility. Clearly he is damaged goods, hardly a beloved figure within the community, or the IHL. To be vilified by Thames, especially in absentia (having just been showered with praise at his departure fete), is a compliment of the highest order. Hudson, by remaining silent and allowing the one-sided mud slinging to continue, is able to distance himself from any real or perceived notion that he was ever a Thames henchman. This cements his image as the anti-Thames, an attractive position in the event he chooses to make a run at the USM top job in 2006. I hate to keep repeating the obvious, but USM hasn't seen the last of Tim Hudson. AE"

my points exactly - austin eagle just said it far more eloquently

what's the opposite of "villify"? whatever the right word is, let's make sure we don't do it to tim hudson

if there is ever going to be a resurrected usm from this mess, it's going to have to be with true academic leadership without the baggage

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: 2 wrongs don't make a right
" what's the opposite of "villify"?"

Sanctify?

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: 2 wrongs don't make a right
"
my points exactly - austin eagle just said it far more eloquently
what's the opposite of "villify"? whatever the right word is, let's make sure we don't do it to tim hudson
if there is ever going to be a resurrected usm from this mess, it's going to have to be with true academic leadership without the baggage"

First, thanks AE for clarifying. I think I'm right on one thing: Normal logic doesn't apply at USM!

Second, on the resurrected USM front: This assumes that IHL wants a "resurrected USM." I don't think that is the plan. Klumb et al are a front that takes the heat, but I am convinced that less vocal trustees believe that Mississippi does not need (and certainly cannot afford) three "comprehensive" universities.

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Sanctify?"

yeah, that's probably the correct word for the meaning "don't make a saint out of him" but its more common meaning "free from sins" works in an interesting way too - maybe that's what a couple years under Jay Gogue's guidance will do for him - thanks

Date: Oct 7, 2004

AE--I, too, believe you are right on about this. But I sure don't think you guys want Hudson as your president. He may make the right gestures but he's always been a self-promoter---and he sure didn't stand up for the riight values last spring.

Date: Oct 7, 2004

I agree with Invictus here.

There won't be a resurrected USM unless Roy Klumb is pushed into resigning from the IHL Board, or so badly discredited that he may remain on the Board but will no longer be able to exercise any power.

Otherwise, every stupid thing Thames does will be seen as fuirther proof that he is carrying out his mission, and Klumb et al. will continue to support him.

Robert Campbell

Date: Oct 7, 2004

Sorry, that's supposed to be further proof...

Date: Oct 7, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I agree with Invictus here.
There won't be a resurrected USM unless Roy Klumb is pushed into resigning from the IHL Board, or so badly discredited that he may remain on the Board but will no longer be able to exercise any power.
Otherwise, every stupid thing Thames does will be seen as fuirther proof that he is carrying out his mission, and Klumb et al. will continue to support him.
Robert Campbell"

Robert, I think you kinda missed my point. Klumb is a point man & a smokescreen for other trustees. He makes the other board members look "reasonable" by comparison, even though a silent majority would probably like nothing more than for USM to be "reduced" to something more akin to JSU than to MSU.

As it happens, it will explained in terms of Mississippi not being able to afford three comprehensive universities. But the stone truth is that it's just petty old-school loyalties operating behind the scenes.

Wait & see. It may take five years, it may take ten, provided the globe & the Republic last that long.

Date: Oct 8, 2004

Invictus,

Well, OK, but what would happen if Klumb made too big a fool of himself in front of the media? Would this slow their momentum, or would the faction for which he is the point man keep right on dismantling USM without his participation?

The Board has the power to shut down programs at USM and to transfer programs from USM to other universities in the state system. If they have brought in Shelby Thames to reduce USM to Jackson State's level, there must be a reason for their choice of an administrator who doesn't believe that that is what he is doing. Otherwise they would simply have proclaimed that USM will no longer be allowed to be a comprehensive university, and made the necessary program cuts.

So is the Board even slightly vulnerable, politically, to public exposure of the ruling faction's true intentions regarding USM?

Robert Campbell